Abstract
Epigenetic genome regulation during malignant cell transformation is characterized by the aberrant methylation and acetylation of histones. Vorinostat (SAHA) is an epigenetic modulator actively used in clinical oncology. The antitumor activity of vorinostat is commonly believed to be associated with the inhibition of histone deacetylases, while the impact of this drug on histone methylation has been poorly studied. Using HeLa TI cells as a test system allowing evaluation of the effect of epigenetically active compounds from the expression of the GFP reporter gene and gene knockdown by small interfering RNAs, we showed that vorinostat not only suppressed HDAC1, but also reduced the activity of EZH2, SUV39H1, SUV39H2, and SUV420H1. The ability of vorinostat to suppress expression of EZH2, SUV39H1/2, SUV420H1 was confirmed by Western blotting. Vorinostat also downregulated expression of SUV420H2 and DOT1L enzymes. The data obtained expand our understanding of the epigenetic effects of vorinostat and demonstrate the need for a large-scale analysis of its activity toward other enzymes involved in the epigenetic genome regulation. Elucidation of the mechanism underlying the epigenetic action of vorinostat will contribute to its more proper use in the treatment of tumors with an aberrant epigenetic profile.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
INTRODUCTION
DNA damage, such as point mutations, gene amplification, and chromosomal translocations, can lead to the irreversible tumor transformation of cells. At the same time, tumor transformation is accompanied by extensive transcriptome reprogramming induced by alterations in the epigenetic modification patterns, in particular, histone methylation [1]. Histone methylation represents one of the key epigenetic mechanisms of transcription regulation and plays a critical role in DNA replication, DNA repair and recombination, gene transcription, cell cycle control, and spatial chromosomal organization [2-4]. Methylation mainly targets lysine and arginine residues in the N-terminal fragments of histones H3 and H4 and can lead to either transcriptional activation (H3K4me2/3, H3K36me2/3, H3K79me1/2/3) [3, 5, 6] or suppression of gene expression (H3K9me2/3, H4K20me3, H3K27me3) [7-9]. Various histone modifications play a key role in the formation of euchromatin and heterochromatin [10]. Histone methylation and demethylation are catalyzed by antagonistic enzymes – histone methyltransferases (HMTs) and demethylases, respectively, that function as components of multiprotein complexes containing chromatin-modifying enzymes, transcription factors, and transcription repressors [11, 12]. Aberrant histone methylation profiles emerge due to structural disturbances in methyltransferase and demethylase genes, altered expression of these enzymes caused by external factors, and/or indirect impact of genetic disorders causing irreversible cell transformation [13]. HMT overexpression and mutations are commonly observed in various types of tumors, as altered chromatin structure often affects signaling pathways and gene expression patterns that promote tumorigenesis [14].
Overexpression of methyltransferases EZH1/2, SETDB1, SUV39H1, SUV420H1/2, G9a, GLP, DOT1L, PRMT5, and PRMT6 is often involved in the emergence of tumors with a poor prognosis, such as breast, prostate, ovarian, pulmonary, cervical, and skin cancers [9, 15-28]. Hence, these enzymes might be promising targets for anticancer therapy. Currently, low-molecular-weight agents capable of modulating the activity of HMTs are actively searched for and investigated. Some of them, e.g., chaetocin (SUV39H1/H2 inhibitor), UNC0642, and BIX01294 (G9a/GLP inhibitors), undergo preclinical testing [29-32]. Pinometostat (DOT1L inhibitor), SHR2554 (EZH2 inhibitor), PRT543 (PRMT5 inhibitor), and EZM8266 (G9a inhibitor) have been tested in clinical trials for the treatment of lymphoid, hematopoietic, and solid tumors [33-35]. In 2020, tasemetostat (EZH2-suppressing agent) became the first HMT inhibitor approved for the cancer therapy [36].
Vorinostat (also known as SAHA or Zolinza®) is an inhibitor of class I, II, and IV histone deacetylases (HDACs) [37]. It is used to treat patients with advanced, recurrent, or chemotherapy-resistant cutaneous T-cell lymphoma [38]. Vorinostat binds zinc ion in the HDAC active site, thus inhibiting the catalytic activity of the enzyme. HDAC inhibition results in the stimulation of histone acetylation and transcription activation [37]. Moreover, vorinostat promotes acetylation of histone proteins and some non-histone transcription factors, as well as proteins involved in the regulation of cell proliferation, migration, and cell death [39]. Extensive in vitro and in vivo studies in various tumor models, including chemoresistance development models, have revealed strong antitumor effect of vorinostat, including cell cycle arrest and initiation of apoptosis and autophagy [40]. Phase I and II clinical trials have demonstrated the positive effects of vorinostat in a combination therapy against multiple myeloma, colorectal carcinoma, sarcoma, myelodysplastic syndrome, and neuroblastoma [41-45].
Earlier studies have shown that vorinostat can also epigenetically regulate transcription by mechanisms other than HDAC inhibition. For instance, HDAC inhibitors, including vorinostat, were found to increase the level of histone 3 methylation at Lys4 (H3K4me1/2/3) due to the miRNA-mediated downregulation of expression of JARID1 lysine demethylases (RBP2, PLU-1, SMCX), as well as LSD1 of the KDM1 family [46]. Vorinostat was also shown to suppress expression of DNA methyltransferases DNMT1 and DNMT3b at both mRNA and protein levels [47]. Several studies have revealed that vorinostat triggers a small but significant decline in the level of H3K9me3 and H3K9me2 modifications [46, 47]. Moreover, vorinostat elicited a locus-specific effect on histone methyltransferases SUV39H1 and EZH2 [48, 49]. Despite these facts, the cumulative effect of vorinostat on the histone methylation by HMTs has not been comprehensively investigated.
Our study was aimed to evaluate the effect of vorinostat on histone methylation at the integral level. We used HeLa TI cells (HeLa trichostatin A-inducible cell population) bearing epigenetically repressed GFP (green fluorescent protein) reporter gene. GFP expression is initiated upon activation of 15 different epigenetic silencing factors that abolish gene repression, including genes encoding proteins regulating histone acetylation and methylation [50]. The knockdown of genes coding for certain epigenetic enzymes in HeLa TI cells allowed us to assess the impact of relevant proteins on the epigenetically regulated transcription. Alternatively, we analyzed the effects of vorinostat by assessing the content of studied enzymes by less laborious and less expensive Western blotting, which made it possible to extend our investigation of the effects elicited by the epigenetic agents. In our study, we (i) modelled the effects triggered by inhibitors with different modes of action on HDACs after HDAC1 gene knockdown in HeLa TI cells to better understand the modality of vorinostat epigenetic action, (ii) assessed the effect of HDAC1, EZH2, SUV39H1, SUV39H2, and SUV420H1 knockdown on the GFP reporter gene expression in vorinostat-treated HeLa TI cells, and (iii) evaluated the effect of vorinostat on the expression of histone methyltransferases EZH2, SUV39H1, SUV39H2, SUV420H1, SUV420H2, G9a, GLP, and DOT1L.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Cell culture. HeLa TI cells derived from the parental HeLa cell line carried epigenetically repressed GFP reporter gene in an avian sarcoma virus vector. In 2008, HeLa TI cells were obtained in the Anna Marie Skalka and Richard Katz laboratory at the Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, USA) [50]. In 2011, HeLa TI cells were made available to the Department of Chemical Carcinogenesis, Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology (Moscow, Russia), within a framework of a collaborative project. In 2021, our laboratory verified the possibility of HeLa TI cell application as a test system for the assessment of epigenetic activity of xenobiotics [51].
HeLa TI cells were cultured in 75-cm2 flasks (Eppendorf, Germany) in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 4.5 g/liter glucose (PanEco, Russia), 10% (v/v) heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (FBS; Biosera, France), antibiotic cocktail containing penicillin (50 units/ml) and streptomycin (50 µg/ml) (PanEco), and 2 mM L-glutamine (PanEco). The cells were cultured under standard conditions (37°C, 5% CO2).
Assessment of modality of vorinostat action in HeLa TI cells. Reactivation of epigenetically repressed GFP gene in HeLa TI cells with HDAC1 knockdown after exposure to epigenetic modulators trichostatin A, 5-azacytidine, and curaxin CBL0137. Trichostatin A (TSA; Selleckchem, USA), 5-azacytidine (5-aza; Merck, Germany), and curaxin CBL0137 (CBL0137; Inkuron, Russia) were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, PanEco) to obtain 10 mM stock solutions. HeLa TI cells were seeded into 24-well plates (Eppendorf) at 20,000 cells per well. After incubation for 10 h, the cells were transfected with 5 nM siRNA (small interfering RNA) against HDAC1 gene (GS3065) mRNA using a set of 4 siRNAs (Qiagen, Germany) and HiPerFect Transfection Reagent (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The concentration of siRNAs was chosen to ensure a near complete (at least 80%) repression of the target gene. As a control, we used AllStars Negative Control siRNA kit (Qiagen) that included several siRNAs against mRNAs with no homology to any known mammalian gene. Selective knockdown of the HDAC1 gene was verified by Western blotting and quantitative PCR (data not shown). The content of viable cells after HDAC1 knockdown was at least 80%. On next day (24 h after transfection), the cells were treated with the non-toxic concentration of TSA (0.12 μM), 5-aza (10 μM), or CBL0137 (0.6 μM) (final DMSO concentration was below 0.1%). After incubation for 24 h, the transfection medium was replaced with fresh culture medium. Finally, 48 h later, the cells were detached using 0.25% (v/v) trypsin-EDTA solution (PanEco), washed with phosphate buffered saline (PBS), pelleted by centrifugation (250g, 5 min), and analyzed by flow cytometry using a BD FACSCanto II device (BD Biosciences, Belgium) with a blue laser (488 nm) and a FITC channel (530/30 nm).To maintain high cell viability in the cell suspension, PBS was supplemented with 2% FBS.
Reactivation of epigenetically repressed GFP gene by exposure to vorinostat and HDAC1/HMT gene knockdown in HeLa TI cells. Vorinostat (SAHA) (Selleckchem) was dissolved in DMSO to obtain 10 mM stock solution. HeLa TI cells were transfected with siRNAs specific to HDAC1 (GS3065), EZH2 (GS2146), SUV39H1 (GS6839), SUV39H2 (GS79723), SUV420H1 (GS51111) genes as described above. A set of 4 siRNAs was used for knockdown of each gene. The concentration of siRNA was chosen to provide a near complete (at least 80%) repression of the target gene. The effects of selective gene knockdown were distinguished from non-specific effects by using AllStars Negative Control siRNA kit (Qiagen) as described above. The content of viable cells after transfection was at least 80%. Twenty-four hours after transfection, the cells were treated with a non-toxic concentration of vorinostat (5 μM) (cell viability was at least 95%); the final DMSO concentration was 0.1% (v/v). After 24 h of incubation, the culture medium was replaced with the fresh one, and the cells were analyzed by flow cytometry.
Analysis of HMT expression in vorinostat-treated HeLa TI cells. Vorinostat (SAHA) dissolved in DMSO to the concentration of 10 mM. HeLa TI cells were seeded in 6-well plates at 250,000 cells per well and incubated with vorinostat (5 μM) and DMSO [final concentration, 0.1% (v/v); negative control] for 24 h. To obtain the total protein fraction, the cells were lyzed for 1 h at 4°C in RIPA buffer containing 50 mM Tris-HCl (PanEco), 150 mM NaCl (PanEco), 1% (v/v) Triton X-100 (Ferak, Germany), 0.5% (w/v) sodium deoxycholate (Diam, Russia), 0.1% (w/v) sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS; Serva, Germany), and protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche, Switzerland). The lysate was centrifuged at 1790g for 5 min at 4°C; the supernatant was collected and proteins were denatured for 5 min in electrophoresis loading buffer (Merck). Protein concentration was determined by the Bradford method [52]. The proteins were separated in 10% polyacrylamide gel (PAG) in Tris-Gly buffer containing SDS (25 mM Tris, 190 mM Gly, 10% SDS) and transferred onto nitrocellulose membrane (Bio-Rad, USA) with 0.45-µm pore size for 1 h at 250 mA (25 to 100-kDa proteins) or 100 V (100 to 150-kDa proteins). The following rabbit antibodies (Abcam, UK) against HMTs were used: EZH2 (ab228697; dilution, 1 : 7000), SUV39H1 (ab245380; dilution, 1 : 3000), SUV39H2 (ab229493; dilution, 1 : 3000), DOT1L (ab64077; dilution, 1 : 500), G9a (ab183889; dilution, 1 : 3000), GLP (ab241306; dilution, 1 : 5000); as well as rabbit antibodies (Thermo-Fisher Scientific, Germany) specific to SUV420H1 (PA5-40926; dilution, 1 : 3000) and SUV420H2 (PA-109891; dilution, 1 : 3000). Rabbit antibodies against β-actin (Abcam; dilution, 1 : 10,000) were used for protein loading control. Horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat antibodies (Abcam; dilution, 1 : 5000) were used as secondary antibodies. Proteins were detected with Clarity™ Western ECL Substrate (Bio-Rad) and ImageQuant LAS 4000 digital image processing system (GE Healthcare, USA) and quantified with the ImageJ software. All experiments were performed in four independent replicates.
Statistical data analysis was performed with the GraphPad Prism 8.3.0 software. The normality of data distribution was assessed with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The significance of difference in the percentage of GFP+ cells after exposure to TSA, 5-aza, and CBL0137 and after HDAC1 knockdown was analyzed using one-way ANOVA with the Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons. The significance of differences in the percentage of vorinostat-exposed GFP+ cells with knocked down HDAC1, EZH2, SUV39H1, SUV39H2, and SUV420H1 genes was assessed using the two-way ANOVA with the Tukey’s post hoc test. The significance of differences in the expression levels of HMTs in vorinostat-treated cells was assessed with the Student’s t-test. In all cases, the differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The major epigenetic effect of vorinostat is non-selective HDAC suppression. Vorinostat is most efficient against HDAC1, HDAC2, HDAC3, and HDAC6. It inhibits HDAC1, HDAC3, and HDAC6 at similar concentrations, with the most prominent decline in expression observed for HDAC1 [53, 54].
HeLa TI cells are a population of HeLa cells carrying epigenetically repressed GFP reporter gene in an avian sarcoma virus-based vector. Epigenetic repression of GFP in HeLa TI cells is driven by more than 15 factors, including chromatin-modifying enzymes and histone chaperones [50]. HDAC enzyme that contributes most to the GFP epigenetic silencing in HeLa TI cells is HDAC1 [55]. Previously, HeLa TI cells were shown to be sensitive to a wide range of epigenetic modulators, including HDAC inhibitors, as well as inhibitors of DNMTs, HMTs, and BRD (bromodomain)-containing proteins. This test system can also be used to analyze synergistic epigenetic effect of chemical agents (epimodulators) with different mechanism of action, as reactivation of GFP expression occurs according to the individual contribution of each tested agent [51]. Based on these data, we proposed that HeLa TI cells with the knocked down HDAC1 could be used for detection of the epigenetic effects of vorinostat unrelated to the HDAC inhibition.
To test this hypothesis, we assessed the effects of HDAC inhibitors with different mechanisms on HeLa TI cell deficient by the HDAC1 gene expression to further use the information to determine the modality of vorinostat effect. Reactivation of the GFP expression was analyzed by determining the content of GFP+ cells after HDAC1 knockdown and treatment with (i) HDAC inhibitor (trichostatin A), (ii) agent with a mixed mechanism of action (curaxin CBL0137), and (iii) agent not affecting the HDAC activity (5-azacytidine). Trichostatin A is an inhibitor of class I and II HDACs that belongs to a group of natural hydroxamic acid derivatives [56]; 5-azacytidine is a cytidine analog that causes DNA demethylation via DNMT inhibition [57]; CBL0137 (low-molecular-weight second-generation curaxin) activates p53 tumor suppressor and inhibits FACT histone chaperone, resulting in the chromatin remodeling and transcription activation [58]. Zhou et al. [59] demonstrated that CBL0137 also upregulates histone H3 acetylation and lowers the level of H3K9me3 and H3K27me3 modifications in the promoters of interferon signaling genes. We found that regardless of the cell treatment, incubation with a set of siRNAs bearing no homology to any known mammalian gene (siNEG) caused no significant alterations in the level of GFP reactivation compared to the non-transfected (NT) cells: the extent of GFP expression reactivation in the NT cells and siNEG-treated cells was 4.2 and 4.5%, respectively (Fig. 1a; Fig. S1, see Online Resource 1).
DMSO-treated cells (vehicle control) had the same percentage of GFP+ cells as untreated (NT-C, siNEG-C) cells. The HDAC1 knockdown resulted in 43.5% reactivation of GFP expression, which was an order of magnitude higher that in the NT cells. Exposure to TSA and treatment with siNEG resulted in the increased percentage of GFP+ cells that was 25 and 27% in the non-transfected (NT-TSA) and siNEG-treated cells, respectively. At the same time, HDAC1 gene knockdown followed by TSA treatment increased GFP reactivation by 50%, which was similar to the effect of siHDAC alone. The percentage of GFP+ cells after exposure to 5-aza was 14% vs. 59% in the HDAC1-knockdown HeLa TI cells, which suggests a cumulative effect of HDAC1 and DNMT downregulation. CBL0137 alone increased reactivation of GFP expression to 28-30%. However, when added to HDAC1-deficient cells, CBL0137 added increased the content of GFP+ cells to 65.5%, which was 2 and ~1.5 times higher than in the cells exposed either to CBL0137 or siHDAC1. These data demonstrate that the agents that do not affect HDAC, but act on other factors of epigenetic repression in HeLa TI cells (e.g., 5-aza) should potentiate the effects elicited by the HDAC1 gene knockdown. The crossover effects of modulators and HDAC1 knockdown can result in their partial or full overlapping at the level of GFP reactivation, as it was shown for TSA. Exposure as a broad-spectrum epigenetic modulator not limited to HDAC (CBL0137) would lead to a significant reactivation of GFP expression.
Next, we analyzed the modality of vorinostat epigenetic action in HeLa TI cells with the knocked down HDAC1 and HMT genes (EZH2, SUV39H1, SUV39H2, SUV420H1). As a KMT6 (lysine methyltransferase 6), EZH2, a component of the PRC2 repressive protein complex, mediates H3K27 di- and trimethylation associated with transcriptional repression [13]. SUV39H1 and SUV39H2 belong to KMT1 methyltransferases that catalyze trimethylation at H3K9. SUV420H1 and its homologue SUV420H2 are key enzymes in H4K20me3 trimethylation, which plays an important role in DNA replication and repair, as well as cell cycle regulation [60]. H3K9me3 and H4K20me3 modifications contribute to the initiation of DNA methylation by recruiting heterochromatic protein HP1 and DNMT, thus promoting transcriptional repression [61, 62]. H3K9me3 and H4K20me3 play a critical role in the formation of condensed chromatin in the pericentric and telomeric repeats and are involved in euchromatin silencing [63, 64].
The content of GFP+ cells in the negative control (NT-C) and transfection control (siNEG-C) groups was 3.7% and 3.4%, respectively (Fig. 1b; Fig. S2, see Online Resource 1). Similar to previous data, siNEG had no effect on the GFP gene reactivation profile as compared to the NT cells. Exposure to DMSO (vehicle control) also caused no significant changes in the percentage of GFP+ cells. HDAC1 knockdown triggered reactivation of GFP expression in 45% cells, whereas vorinostat induced it in 37% cells (Fig. 1b). Exposure of HDAC1-knockdown cells to vorinostat increased the content of GFP+ cells to 78%, which exceeded the levels of GFP reactivation after exposure to vorinostat alone (2.1-fold) and HDAC1 knockdown (1.7-fold). Therefore, the use of vorinostat as an HDAC inhibitor in the HDAC1-knockdown HeLa TI cells resulted in the elevated percentage of GFP+ cells, thereby indicating an existence of an HDAC-independent epigenetic effect of vorinostat.
Compared to the negative control, the knockdown of EZH2, SUV39H1, SUV39H2, and SUV420H1 genes resulted in a significantly elevated percentage of GFP+ cells: EZH2 (48%; 12.9-fold), SUV39H1 (44%; 11.8-fold), SUV39H2 (34%; 9.1-fold), SUV420H1 (33%; 8.8-fold) (Fig. 1b). In a population of EZH2-knockdown cells, vorinostat increased the content of GFP+ cells up to 73%, which 1.5 and 2 times higher than in cells transfected with siEZH2 and exposed to vorinostat, respectively. The knockdown of SUV39H1 followed by the treatment with vorinostat also increased the percentage of GFP+ cells compared to knockdown cells and cells exposed to vorinostat alone (1.4- and 1.6-fold, respectively). Reactivation of GFP expression was found in 60% of SUV39H2-knockdown cells treated with vorinostat, which was 1.8- and 1.6-times more than for the individual effects of either siSUV39H2 and vorinostat, respectively. Exposure to vorinostat of SUV420H1-knockdown cells increased the percentage of GFP+ cells to 63.2%, which exceeded 1.9 and 1.7 times the effects elicited by either siSUV420H1 and vorinostat alone, respectively. These data show that the effect of vorinostat overlapped with the effects of EZH2, SUV39H2, and SUV420H1 knockdowns, suggesting that vorinostat might have an impact on these enzymes. It should be noted that the knockdown of SUV39H1, SUV39H2, and SUV420H1 genes in HeLa TI cells followed by vorinostat treatment decreased the percentage of viable cells to 65%. Such high toxicity may be explained by the fact that SUV39H1, SUV39H2, and SUV420H1 methyltransferases are important in the catalysis of H3K9me3 and H4K20me3 modifications essential for the chromosome structure organization, so that their loss may be critical even upon a short-term treatment with siRNA [65].
The results obtained in the HeLa TI cells suggested that vorinostat nonselectively inhibited expression of some HMTs. In view of this, we used Western blotting to assess the impact of vorinostat not only on enzymes that we found to be affected in the HeLa TI model system, but also on some other HMTs (SUV420H2, G9a, GLP, and DOT1L). Related methyltransferases G9a and GLP act in a content of heterodimeric complex and mediate H3K9 mono- and demethylation, as well as induce DNA methylation [66]. As KMT4 methyltransferase, DOT1L catalyzes mono-, di-, and trimethylation of H3K79. DOT1L is involved in multiple cellular events, including genomic imprinting, DNA damage response, and processes, such as erythropoiesis, cell differentiation, and embryonic development [67]. DOT1L overexpression results in the activation of gene transcription, including transcription of telomeric sequences [68]. Moreover, DOT1L-mediated H3K79 methylation limits recruitment of repressive proteins to heterochromatin regions [69].
Exposure to vorinostat elicited an overall decline (1.8-fold) in the EZH2 protein expression (Fig. 2). These results are in good agreement with the data reported by Nordstrom et al. [49] who demonstrated that treatment with 5 μM vorinostat decreased the content of EZH2 as well as the level of H3K27me3 modification in the promoter of the SOX11 gene encoding SRY-box transcription factor 11. Also, Shi et al. [70] reported an increased sensitivity to vorinostat of non-small cell lung cancer cells with upregulated EZH2 expression, as well as a positive correlation between the expression of EZH2 and HDAC1.
It was found that exposure to vorinostat resulted in a significant decrease in the content of SUV39H1 (1.6-fold) and SUV39H2 (2.8-fold) proteins responsible for the H3K9me3 modification (Fig. 2). The effect of vorinostat on SUV39H1 correlated with the data by Natarajan et al. [48] on the downregulated expression of methyltransferases DNMT3A, SUV39H1, and PRMT1 in cultured ovarian cancer cells exposed to vorinostat at a comparable dose (7.5 μM). Expression of GLP and G9a, components of the complex mediating H3K9 dimethylation, was changed insignificantly, although the content of G9a was slightly (1.4-fold) decreased. Vorinostat caused a decline in the expression of SUV420H1 and SUV420H2 involved in the methylation of H4K20me3 repressive mark (1.3- and 1.5-fold, respectively). The observed impact of vorinostat on these proteins may provide a deeper insight into its potential to induce chromatin reorganization which might be related to the genotoxic effect of this compound [71, 72]. We also demonstrated that exposure to vorinostat inhibited 2 times the expression of DOT1L, a protein that methylates H3K79. No effects of vorinostat toward SUV39H2, SUV420H1, SUV420H2, and DOT1L have been previously described.
CONCLUSION
Here, we demonstrated that along with the HDAC inhibition, the epigenetic effect of vorinostat (SAHA) involves its action on HMTs. It was shown for the first time that vorinostat decreases the total level of SUV39H2, SUV420H1, SUV420H2, and DOT1L that are commonly found to be overexpressed in various tumors. The new data on the mechanism of epigenetic activity of vorinostat will ensure a proper use of this agent in the antitumor therapy, as well as provide deeper insight into molecular mechanisms behind its side effects. Taken together, the obtained data can serve as a mechanistic basis for expanding the use of vorinostat and increasing the efficacy of treatment of tumors with aberrant epigenetic profiles.
Abbreviations
- 5-aza:
-
5-azacytidine
- CBL0137:
-
curaxin CBL0137
- DNMT:
-
DNA methyltransferase
- HDAC:
-
histone deacetylase
- HeLa TI:
-
trichostatin A-inducible HeLa cell population
- HMT:
-
histone methyltransferase
- KMT:
-
lysine methyltransferase
- me:
-
methyl group
- NT:
-
non-transfected
- TSA:
-
trichostatin A
References
Tian, X., Zhang, S., Liu, H. M., Zhang, Y. B., Blair, C. A., Mercola, D., Sassone-Corsi, P., and Zi, X. (2013) Histone lysine-specific methyltransferases and demethylases in carcinogenesis: new targets for cancer therapy and prevention, Curr. Cancer Drug Targets, 13, 558-579, https://doi.org/10.2174/1568009611313050007.
Zhao, S., Allis, C. D., and Wang, G. G. (2021) The language of chromatin modification in human cancers, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 21, 413-430, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-021-00357-x.
Lam, U. T. F., Tan, B. K. Y., Poh, J. J. X., and Chen, E. S. (2022) Structural and functional specificity of H3K36 methylation, Epigenetics Chromatin, 15, 17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13072-022-00446-7.
Greer, E. L., and Shi, Y. (2012) Histone methylation: a dynamic mark in health, disease and inheritance, Nat. Rev. Genet., 13, 343-357, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3173.
Santos-Rosa, H., Schneider, R., Bannister, A. J., Sherriff, J., Bernstein, B. E., Emre, N. C., Schreiber, S. L., Mellor, J., and Kouzarides, T. (2002) Active genes are tri-methylated at K4 of histone H3, Nature, 419, 407-411, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01080.
Farooq, Z., Banday, S., Pandita, T. K., and Altaf, M. (2016) The many faces of histone H3K79 methylation, Mutat. Res. Rev. Mutat. Res., 768, 46-52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2016.03.005.
Cutter DiPiazza, A. R., Taneja, N., Dhakshnamoorthy, J., Wheeler, D., Holla, S., and Grewal, S. I. S. (2021) Spreading and epigenetic inheritance of heterochromatin require a critical density of histone H3 lysine 9 tri-methylation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e2100699118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100699118.
Schotta, G., Lachner, M., Sarma, K., Ebert, A., Sengupta, R., Reuter, G., Reinberg, D., and Jenuwein, T. (2004) A silencing pathway to induce H3-K9 and H4-K20 trimethylation at constitutive heterochromatin, Genes Dev., 18, 1251-1262, https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.300704.
Padeken, J., Methot, S. P., and Gasser, S. M. (2022) Establishment of H3K9-methylated heterochromatin and its functions in tissue differentiation and maintenance, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 23, 623-640, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-022-00483-w.
Murakami, Y. (2013) Heterochromatin and Euchromatin, in Encyclopedia of Systems Biology (Dubitzky, W., Wolkenhauer, O., Cho, K.-H., and Yokota, H. eds) Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 881-884, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9863-7_1413.
Dimitrova, E., Turberfield, A. H., and Klose, R. J. (2015) Histone demethylases in chromatin biology and beyond, EMBO Rep., 16, 1620-1639, https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201541113.
Taylor-Papadimitriou, J., and Burchell, J. M. (2022) Histone methylases and demethylases regulating antagonistic methyl marks: changes occurring in cancer, Cells, 11, 1113, https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11071113.
Chen, Y., Ren, B., Yang, J., Wang, H., Yang, G., Xu, R., You, L., and Zhao, Y. (2020) The role of histone methylation in the development of digestive cancers: a potential direction for cancer management, Signal. Transduct. Target Ther., 5, 143, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-020-00252-1.
Yang, Y., Zhang, M., and Wang, Y. (2022) The roles of histone modifications in tumorigenesis and associated inhibitors in cancer therapy, J. Natl. Cancer Center, 2, 277-290, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jncc.2022.09.002.
Lee, S. H., Li, Y., Kim, H., Eum, S., Park, K., and Lee, C. H. (2022) The role of EZH1 and EZH2 in development and cancer, BMB Rep., 55, 595-601, https://doi.org/10.5483/BMBRep.2022.55.12.174.
Duan, D., Shang, M., Han, Y., Liu, J., Liu, J., Kong, S. H., Hou, J., Huang, B., Lu, J., and Zhang, Y. (2022) EZH2-CCF-cGAS Axis Promotes Breast Cancer Metastasis, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23, 1788, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031788.
Entezari, M., Taheriazam, A., Paskeh, M. D. A., Sabouni, E., Zandieh, M. A., Aboutalebi, M., Kakavand, A., Rezaei, S., Hejazi, E. S., Saebfar, H., Salimimoghadam, S., Mirzaei, S., Hashemi, M., and Samarghandian, S. (2023) The pharmacological and biological importance of EZH2 signaling in lung cancer, Biomed. Pharmacother., 160, 114313, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114313.
Zakharova, V. V., Magnitov, M. D., Del Maestro, L., Ulianov, S. V., Glentis, A., Uyanik, B., Williart, A., Karpukhina, A., Demidov, O., Joliot, V., Vassetzky, Y. S., Mege, R. M., Piel, M., Razin, S. V., and Ait-Si-Ali, S. (2022) SETDB1 fuels the lung cancer phenotype by modulating epigenome, 3D genome organization and chromatin mechanical properties, Nucleic Acids Res., 50, 4389-4413, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac234.
Liu, Z., Liu, J., Ebrahimi, B., Pratap, U. P., He, Y., Altwegg, K. A., Tang, W., Li, X., Lai, Z., Chen, Y., Shen, L., Sareddy, G. R., Viswanadhapalli, S., Tekmal, R. R., Rao, M. K., and Vadlamudi, R. K. (2022) SETDB1 interactions with PELP1 contributes to breast cancer endocrine therapy resistance, Breast Cancer Res., 24, 26, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-022-01520-4.
Zhang, L., Tian, S., Zhao, M., Yang, T., Quan, S., Song, L., and Yang, X. (2021) SUV39H1-mediated DNMT1 is involved in the epigenetic regulation of Smad3 in cervical cancer, Anticancer Agents Med. Chem., 21, 756-765, https://doi.org/10.2174/1871520620666200721110016.
Saha, N., and Muntean, A. G. (2021) Insight into the multi-faceted role of the SUV family of H3K9 methyltransferases in carcinogenesis and cancer progression, Biochim. Biophys. Acta Rev. Cancer, 1875, 188498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2020.188498.
Vougiouklakis, T., Sone, K., Saloura, V., Cho, H. S., Suzuki, T., Dohmae, N., Alachkar, H., Nakamura, Y., and Hamamoto, R. (2015) SUV420H1 enhances the phosphorylation and transcription of ERK1 in cancer cells, Oncotarget, 6, 43162-43171, https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.6351.
Moshiri, A., Cheng, H., Kim, S., and Saloura, V. J. (2023) SUV420H1 as a novel target in HPV-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, Cancer Res., 83, 6284, https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2023-6284.
Viotti, M., Wilson, C., McCleland, M., Koeppen, H., Haley, B., Jhunjhunwala, S., Klijn, C., Modrusan, Z., Arnott, D., Classon, M., Stephan, J. P., and Mellman, I. (2018) SUV420H2 is an epigenetic regulator of epithelial/mesenchymal states in pancreatic cancer, J. Cell Biol., 217, 763-777, https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201705031.
Nachiyappan, A., Gupta, N., and Taneja, R. (2022) EHMT1/EHMT2 in EMT, cancer stemness and drug resistance: emerging evidence and mechanisms, FEBS J., 289, 1329-1351, https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.16334.
Alexandrova, E., Salvati, A., Pecoraro, G., Lamberti, J., Melone, V., Sellitto, A., Rizzo, F., Giurato, G., Tarallo, R., Nassa, G., and Weisz, A. (2022) Histone methyltransferase DOT1L as a promising epigenetic target for treatment of solid tumors, Front. Genet., 13, 864612, https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.864612.
Wu, Y., Wang, Z., Han, L., Guo, Z., Yan, B., Guo, L., Zhao, H., Wei, M., Hou, N., Ye, J., Wang, Z., Shi, C., Liu, S., Chen, C., Chen, S., Wang, T., Yi, J., Zhou, J., Yao, L., Zhou, W., et al. (2022) PRMT5 regulates RNA m6A demethylation for doxorubicin sensitivity in breast cancer, Mol. Ther., 30, 2603-2617, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2022.03.003.
Chen, Z., Gan, J., Wei, Z., Zhang, M., Du, Y., Xu, C., and Zhao, H. (2022) The emerging role of PRMT6 in cancer, Front Oncol, 12, 841381, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.841381.
Jiang, H., Li, Y., Xiang, X., Tang, Z., Liu, K., Su, Q., Zhang, X., and Li, L. (2021) Chaetocin: A review of its anticancer potentials and mechanisms, Eur. J. Pharmacol., 910, 174459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2021.174459.
Zhang, S., Guo, J., Zhang, H., Tong, L., and Zhang, L. (2023) Gliotoxin induced ferroptosis by downregulating SUV39H1 expression in esophageal cancer cells, Recent Pat. Anticancer Drug Discov., 18, 397-407, https://doi.org/10.2174/1574892817666220905114120.
Rahman, Z., Bazaz, M. R., Devabattula, G., Khan, M. A., and Godugu, C. (2021) Targeting H3K9 methyltransferase G9a and its related molecule GLP as a potential therapeutic strategy for cancer, J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol., 35, e22674, https://doi.org/10.1002/jbt.22674.
Lin, H. Y., Wu, H. J., Chen, S. Y., Hou, M. F., Lin, C. S., and Chu, P. Y. (2022) Epigenetic therapy combination of UNC0638 and CI-994 suppresses breast cancer via epigenetic remodeling of BIRC5 and GADD45A, Biomed. Pharmacother., 145, 112431, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112431.
Rugo, H. S., Jacobs, I., Sharma, S., Scappaticci, F., Paul, T. A., Jensen-Pergakes, K., and Malouf, G. G. (2020) The promise for histone methyltransferase inhibitors for epigenetic therapy in clinical oncology: a narrative review, Adv. Ther., 37, 3059-3082, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01379-x.
Stein, E. M., Garcia-Manero, G., Rizzieri, D. A., Tibes, R., Berdeja, J. G., Savona, M. R., Jongen-Lavrenic, M., Altman, J. K., Thomson, B., Blakemore, S. J., Daigle, S. R., Waters, N. J., Suttle, A. B., Clawson, A., Pollock, R., Krivtsov, A., Armstrong, S. A., DiMartino, J., Hedrick, E., Lowenberg, B., and Tallman, M. S. (2018) The DOT1L inhibitor pinometostat reduces H3K79 methylation and has modest clinical activity in adult acute leukemia, Blood, 131, 2661-2669, https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-12-818948.
Marzochi, L. L., Cuzziol, C. I., Nascimento Filho, C., Dos Santos, J. A., Castanhole-Nunes, M. M. U., Pavarino, E. C., Guerra, E. N. S., and Goloni-Bertollo, E. M. (2023) Use of histone methyltransferase inhibitors in cancer treatment: a systematic review, Eur. J. Pharmacol., 944, 175590, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2023.175590.
Hoy, S. M. (2020) Tazemetostat: first approval, Drugs, 80, 513-521, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-020-01288-x.
Richon, V. M. (2006) Cancer biology: mechanism of antitumour action of vorinostat (suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid), a novel histone deacetylase inhibitor, Br. J. Cancer, 95, S2-S6, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603463.
Siegel, D., Hussein, M., Belani, C., Robert, F., Galanis, E., Richon, V. M., Garcia-Vargas, J., Sanz-Rodriguez, C., and Rizvi, S. (2009) Vorinostat in solid and hematologic malignancies, J. Hematol. Oncol., 2, 31, https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-8722-2-31.
Singh, B. N., Zhang, G., Hwa, Y. L., Li, J., Dowdy, S. C., and Jiang, S. W. (2010) Nonhistone protein acetylation as cancer therapy targets, Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther., 10, 935-954, https://doi.org/10.1586/era.10.62.
Lee, Y. J., Won, A. J., Lee, J., Jung, J. H., Yoon, S., Lee, B. M., and Kim, H. S. (2012) Molecular mechanism of SAHA on regulation of autophagic cell death in tamoxifen-resistant MCF-7 breast cancer cells, Int. J. Med. Sci., 9, 881-893, https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.5011.
Brown, S., Pawlyn, C., Tillotson, A.-L., Sherratt, D., Flanagan, L., Low, E., Morgan, G. J., Williams, C., Kaiser, M., Davies, F. E., and Jenner, M. W. (2021) Bortezomib, vorinostat, and dexamethasone combination therapy in relapsed myeloma: results of the phase 2 MUK four trial, Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk., 21, 154-161.e153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2020.11.019.
Bilotti, E., Vesole, D. H., McBride, L., Schmidt, L., Gao, Z., Gilani, M., McNeill, A., Bednarz, U., Richter, J., Mato, A., Graef, T., and Siegel, D. S. (2016) Vorinostat in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma, Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk., 16, 558-562, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2016.08.001.
Wang, Y., Janku, F., Piha-Paul, S., Hess, K., Broaddus, R., Liu, L., Shi, N., Overman, M., Kopetz, S., Subbiah, V., Naing, A., Hong, D., Tsimberidou, A. M., Karp, D., Yao, J., and Fu, S. (2020) Phase I studies of vorinostat with ixazomib or pazopanib imply a role of antiangiogenesis-based therapy for TP53 mutant malignancies, Sci. Rep., 10, 3080, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58366-z.
Prebet, T., Braun, T., Beyne-Rauzy, O., Dreyfus, F., Stammatoullas, A., Wattel, E., Ame, S., Raffoux, E., Delaunay, J., Charbonnier, A., Ades, L., Fenaux, P., and Vey, N. (2014) Combination of vorinostat and low dose cytarabine for patients with azacitidine-refractory/relapsed high risk myelodysplastic syndromes, Leuk. Res., 38, 29-33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2013.07.023.
DuBois, S. G., Granger, M. M., Groshen, S., Tsao-Wei, D., Ji, L., Shamirian, A., Czarnecki, S., Goodarzian, F., Berkovich, R., Shimada, H., Villablanca, J. G., Vo, K. T., Pinto, N., Mosse, Y. P., Maris, J. M., Shusterman, S., Cohn, S. L., Goldsmith, K. C., Weiss, B., Yanik, G. A., Twist, C. J., Irwin, M. S., Haas-Kogan, D. A., Park, J. R., Marachelian, A., and Matthay, K. K. (2021) Randomized phase II trial of MIBG versus MIBG, vincristine, and irinotecan versus MIBG and vorinostat for patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: a report from NANT consortium, J. Clin. Oncol., 39, 3506-3514, https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.00703.
Huang, P. H., Chen, C. H., Chou, C. C., Sargeant, A. M., Kulp, S. K., Teng, C. M., Byrd, J. C., and Chen, C. S. (2011) Histone deacetylase inhibitors stimulate histone H3 lysine 4 methylation in part via transcriptional repression of histone H3 lysine 4 demethylases, Mol. Pharmacol., 79, 197-206, https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.110.067702.
Li, C. T., Hsiao, Y. M., Wu, T. C., Lin, Y. W., Yeh, K. T., and Ko, J. L. (2011) Vorinostat, SAHA, represses telomerase activity via epigenetic regulation of telomerase reverse transcriptase in non-small cell lung cancer cells, J. Cell Biochem., 112, 3044-3053, https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.23229.
Natarajan, U., Venkatesan, T., and Rathinavelu, A. (2021) Effect of the HDAC inhibitor on histone acetylation and methyltransferases in A2780 ovarian cancer cells, Medicina (Kaunas), 57, 456, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57050456.
Nordstrom, L., Andersson, E., Kuci, V., Gustavsson, E., Holm, K., Ringner, M., Guldberg, P., and Ek, S. (2015) DNA methylation and histone modifications regulate SOX11 expression in lymphoid and solid cancer cells, BMC Cancer, 15, 273, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1208-y.
Poleshko, A., Einarson, M. B., Shalginskikh, N., Zhang, R., Adams, P. D., Skalka, A. M., and Katz, R. A. (2010) Identification of a functional network of human epigenetic silencing factors, J. Biol. Chem., 285, 422-433, https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.064667.
Maksimova, V., Shalginskikh, N., Vlasova, O., Usalka, O., Beizer, A., Bugaeva, P., Fedorov, D., Lizogub, O., Lesovaya, E., Katz, R., Belitsky, G., Kirsanov, K., and Yakubovskaya, M. (2021) HeLa TI cell-based assay as a new approach to screen for chemicals able to reactivate the expression of epigenetically silenced genes, PLoS One, 16, e0252504, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252504.
Kruger, N. J. (2009) The Bradford Method For Protein Quantitation, in The Protein Protocols Handbook (Walker, J. M., ed.) Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp. 17-24, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-198-7_4.
Suzuki, T., Kasuya, Y., Itoh, Y., Ota, Y., Zhan, P., Asamitsu, K., Nakagawa, H., Okamoto, T., and Miyata, N. (2013) Identification of highly selective and potent histone deacetylase 3 inhibitors using click chemistry-based combinatorial fragment assembly, PLoS One, 8, e68669, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068669.
Kurundkar, D., Srivastava, R. K., Chaudhary, S. C., Ballestas, M. E., Kopelovich, L., Elmets, C. A., and Athar, M. (2013) Vorinostat, an HDAC inhibitor attenuates epidermoid squamous cell carcinoma growth by dampening mTOR signaling pathway in a human xenograft murine model, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 266, 233-244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2012.11.002.
Poleshko, A., Kossenkov, A. V., Shalginskikh, N., Pecherskaya, A., Einarson, M. B., Skalka, A. M., and Katz, R. A. (2014) Human factors and pathways essential for mediating epigenetic gene silencing, Epigenetics, 9, 1280-1289, https://doi.org/10.4161/epi.32088.
Xiao, W., Chen, X., Liu, X., Luo, L., Ye, S., and Liu, Y. (2014) Trichostatin A, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, suppresses proliferation and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in retinal pigment epithelium cells, J. Cell. Mol. Med., 18, 646-655, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.12212.
Christman, J. K. (2002) 5-Azacytidine and 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine as inhibitors of DNA methylation: mechanistic studies and their implications for cancer therapy, Oncogene, 21, 5483-5495, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1205699.
Jin, M. Z., Xia, B. R., Xu, Y., and Jin, W. L. (2018) Curaxin CBL0137 exerts anticancer activity via diverse mechanisms, Front. Oncol., 8, 598, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00598.
Zhou, D., Park, J. G., Wu, Z., Huang, H., Fiches, G. N., Biswas, A., Li, T. W., Ma, Q., Martinez-Sobrido, L., Santoso, N., and Zhu, J. (2021) FACT subunit SUPT16H associates with BRD4 and contributes to silencing of antiviral interferon signaling, bioRxiv, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.21.440833.
Gabellini, D., and Pedrotti, S. (2022) The SUV4-20H histone methyltransferases in health and disease, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 23, 4736, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23094736.
Lachner, M., O’Carroll, D., Rea, S., Mechtler, K., and Jenuwein, T. (2001) Methylation of histone H3 lysine 9 creates a binding site for HP1 proteins, Nature, 410, 116-120, https://doi.org/10.1038/35065132.
Ren, W., Fan, H., Grimm, S. A., Kim, J. J., Li, L., Guo, Y., Petell, C. J., Tan, X.-F., Zhang, Z.-M., Coan, J. P., Yin, J., Kim, D. I., Gao, L., Cai, L., Khudaverdyan, N., Çetin, B., Patel, D. J., Wang, Y., Cui, Q., Strahl, B. D., Gozani, Or, Miller, K. M., O'Leary, S. E., Wade, P. A., Wang, G. G., and Song, J. (2021) DNMT1 reads heterochromatic H4K20me3 to reinforce LINE-1 DNA methylation, Nat. Commun., 12, 2490, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22665-4.
Dang-Nguyen, T. Q., Haraguchi, S., Furusawa, T., Somfai, T., Kaneda, M., Watanabe, S., Akagi, S., Kikuchi, K., Tajima, A., and Nagai, T. (2013) Downregulation of histone methyltransferase genes SUV39H1 and SUV39H2 increases telomere length in embryonic stem-like cells and embryonic fibroblasts in pigs, J. Reprod. Dev., 59, 27-32, https://doi.org/10.1262/jrd.2012-118.
Abini-Agbomson, S., Gretarsson, K., Shih, R. M., Hsieh, L., Lou, T., Ioannes, P. D., Vasilyev, N., Lee, R., Wang, M., Simon, M., Armache, J.-P., Nudler, E., Narlikar, G., Liu, S., Lu, C., and Armache, K.-J. (2023) Catalytic and non-catalytic mechanisms of histone H4 lysine 20 methyltransferase SUV420H1, bioRxiv, https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.17.533220.
Nicetto, D., and Zaret, K. S. (2019) Role of H3K9me3 heterochromatin in cell identity establishment and maintenance, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 55, 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2019.04.013.
Tachibana, M., Matsumura, Y., Fukuda, M., Kimura, H., and Shinkai, Y. (2008) G9a/GLP complexes independently mediate H3K9 and DNA methylation to silence transcription, EMBO J., 27, 2681-2690, https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2008.192.
Shah, S., and Henriksen, M. A. (2011) A novel disrupter of telomere silencing 1-like (DOT1L) interaction is required for signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1)-activated gene expression, J. Biol. Chem., 286, 41195-41204, https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.284190.
Song, Y., Wu, F., and Wu, J. (2016) Targeting histone methylation for cancer therapy: enzymes, inhibitors, biological activity and perspectives, J. Hematol. Oncol., 9, 49, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-016-0279-9.
Pokholok, D. K., Harbison, C. T., Levine, S., Cole, M., Hannett, N. M., Lee, T. I., Bell, G. W., Walker, K., Rolfe, P. A., Herbolsheimer, E., Zeitlinger, J., Lewitter, F., Gifford, D. K., and Young, R. A. (2005) Genome-wide map of nucleosome acetylation and methylation in yeast, Cell, 122, 517-527, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.06.026.
Shi, B., Behrens, C., Vaghani, V., Riquelme, E. M., Rodriguez-Canales, J., Kadara, H., Lin, H., Lee, J., Liu, H., Wistuba, I., and Simon, G. (2019) Oncogenic enhancer of zeste homolog 2 is an actionable target in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, Cancer Med., 8, 6383-6392, https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1855.
Petruccelli, L. A., Dupere-Richer, D., Pettersson, F., Retrouvey, H., Skoulikas, S., and Miller, W. H., Jr. (2011) Vorinostat induces reactive oxygen species and DNA damage in acute myeloid leukemia cells, PLoS One, 6, e20987, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020987.
Attia, S. M., Al-Khalifa, M. K., Al-Hamamah, M. A., Alotaibi, M. R., Attia, M. S. M., Ahmad, S. F., Ansari, M. A., Nadeem, A., and Bakheet, S. A. (2020) Vorinostat is genotoxic and epigenotoxic in the mouse bone marrow cells at the human equivalent doses, Toxicology, 441, 152507, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2020.152507.
Funding
The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project 21-75-10163).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
V.M., K.K., and M.Ya. conceived the study; K.K. and M.Ya. supervised the study and edited the manuscript; V.M. and J.M. wrote the manuscript; V.M., J.M., V.P., A.P., O.U., E.T., and E.Zh. performed the experiments; V.M., J.M., and E.Zh. prepared the figures; V.M., K.K., M.Ya., and G.B. discussed the data.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The authors declare no conflict of interest. This article does not contain description of studies with the involvement of humans or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Open access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Maksimova, V., Makus, J., Popova, V. et al. Histone Methyltransferases as a New Target for Epigenetic Action of Vorinostat. Biochemistry Moscow 88, 968–978 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S000629792307009X
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S000629792307009X